In article AANLkTi=QXv-2MeF5jqi=oZHk4w5zjhr=vLp+qAEKKcwg@mail.gmail.com, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Tobias,
I personally think this "weakly-depends-on" is a horrible mess.
If you want FOO, require FOO. If you want FOO+READTABLE, require FOO+READTABLE.
And so have two systems FOO and FOO+READTABLE. I think that's what the dwim.hu guys now do. It also works better with XCVB, this way.
I'll follow up to this suggestion on Juanjo's summary mail.
I'd think ASDF should include a ./configure step (there are extension for that kind of thing out there), and should then save configuration choices persistently, and check for these when loading a system.
I think this can be external to ASDF itself. At ITA, we have scripts that do things like that. My, it's ugly. Trying to get rid of it.
How can this be external? It must be integrated into the way ASDF stores fasls, and loads system. Now it may be that its GF architecture is extensible enough but then GF extensions are hard to get to a point where they compose.
-T.